A few years ago I was in a hiring loop where four interviewers grilled me on a number of subjects, including algorithms and data structures. They asked me all sorts of trivia questions on assimptotic complexity of this and that algorithm, how to implement this and that, how to traverse stuff, etc. As luck would have it, I was hired. I spent a few years working for that company and not a single time did I ever implemented a data structure at all or wrote any sort of iterator. Not once.

I did spend months writing stuff in an internal wiki.

I can't help but feel that those bullshit leetcode data structures computational complexity trivia are just a convoluted form of ladder-pulling.

don't take tech interviews seriously, they suck for everyone but big corps

your 2 decades of experience mean much more than memorizing algorithms, you know how to produce real value

don't forget that, and don't let them forget it

They've been pulling leetcode questions designed to take a lot of thought and effort. They then expect people to get them in 10 minutes.

Unfortunately, I never got a degree so even when I can ace those questions, I'm really just there to fill their interview quota for the most part.

Yeah, they kinda suck and they are brutal to go into cold. Having to grind a bunch of leetcode problems is a burden, particularly if you currently have a job and god forbid a family.

I would still take them over the puzzle questions that used to be popular, or the personality test nonsense that dominates most fields. At least Leetcode problems are reasonably reflective of programming skill. I'll also take them over vague open ended questions - ain't nothing more fun than trying to ramble my way into whatever answer the interviewer is secretly looking for.

Personally, when the day comes when I'm In Charge, I plan on experimenting with more day to day type evaluations. I think there's potential for things like performing a mock code review or having someone plan out a sprint based on a very detailed design document. "Here's an icky piece of code, tell me what it does and what you would do to improve it" seems to have fallen out of style, though it's not clear to me why.

That said, like it or not it's how the game is played and not changing anytime soon. Get on the Grind75 train, or don't and keep failing tech screens.

Don't worry about the algorithm questions... companies asking that are just google-wannabe companies that don't deserve you. I have always told recruiters "if there's a time-limited interview test, I'm out", and I'm doing very well for myself now.

If you're desperate, unfortunately, you have to pick up a book on algorithms... one of those 600 pages book, and start reading...

Astronaut: You mean they're all too stupid to do the jobs they currently have?

2nd Astronaut: And they always were.

Also - those kinds of interview questions are bullshit. A good tech interviewer can ask about past experience and learn plenty from questions in that context.

If they ask a tech test question, it's time to leave. When they act surprised, tell them you don't believe in wasting your time with bullshit.

You have a 2^n marbles and a scale....

I simply refuse to move forward if the interview process involves a whiteboard interview. I have no aspirations to work at FAANG so this has only happened to me a couple of times

I was so lucky in the interview for my current job: I'm working on a product with a big networking component, and I was asked to write an echo server with low level components. That was maybe the second time I had a test related to the job.

another problem with tech tests is how broad of scope they cover - like everything you've learned when pursuing your degree.

Most other professional engineering disciplines have licensing obtained using FE and PE exams. Those exams are effectively "tech tests" equivalents but after passing them you get a license that you have to maintain. I can appreciate this approach since you can take CEU (continuing education) to maintain your license instead of taking the entire test all over again.

I never though software engineers would need a license but I would MUCH rather prefer grind to obtain a license ONCE which then I can use to fulfill tech test requirements and maintain the license with much less effort throughout the year.

Never had issues in the past, I actually did the tests for few friends, just for fun. But most of the time they are overkill. Now that I have more experience I realize it takes few very basic questions to understand if one is technically fit for the job.

I don't know if I would appreciate a complex test now if I was looking for a new position. It feels a bit disrespectful.

I currently struggle accepting all the psychological and hr tests for management positions... They are hr bs. I do them, but they are imho much worse than technical test, because completely useless and arbitrary. Those are really offensive and intrusive

I hope I never have to look for a job again but with the way my business has gone lately, I may need to start thinking about it in a few years.

I've also been coding for 25 years, most of that professionally. I'm not sure I could pass a tech interview.

For a lot of these you need to study/practice on sites like HackerRank for a while first. Some companies go overboard and expect you to build some crazy recursive dynamic programming implementation in 15 mins without an IDE, others are more realistic and just want to see if you know things like algorithm complexity, can pick appropriate data structures, and write logical and clean code. And yes, very little of it applies to what most of us do day to day. Anyways, HackerRank is great for interview practice, you can Google for pretty much any solution to their questions.

Sometimes those positions are meant for promoting internal candidates, who obviously sat in, conducting the same interviews in the past. So the difficulty is dialed up to "I am Death incarnate!" levels and they then have scoring data to support their selection of the internal candidate. At a friend's workplace, they'd opened up a 2-3yr exp position to convert a great intern, and had some great 10+yr exp people apply. My friend said that was a little awkward. Even if Mark Russinovich or Linus Torvalds applied for that job, they still had no chance at getting it. I joked that I might put a resume in his manager's pile for the creator of the tech stack they were interviewing for, just to hear how that reaction was.

That's probably not representing even... 5% of these gauntlets, but it might make you feel better. Sometimes, it's the hiring manager fulfilling the letter but not the spirit of some process, but it means they are frustratingly hard on candidates in the process.

And perhaps, ultimately, you have dodged some bullets.

We ask algorithm questions and I feel bad about it. But a nontrivial portion of the job really is adapting these algorithms to novel scenarios. Not most of the job, but maybe the hardest part.